Are we heading in the right direction? 2025 Version

[Sorinth]

When I was at the Bell center this season, the terrible defeat vs Vegas, I saw Dach as a very static and useless player. I saw Dvorak as a better player and I wasn't a fan of Dvo. I don't know if that was an injury but Dach was not moving his feet and looked not interrested in the game. He was completely turned off.

Sometimes I'm thinking the Hawks knew he didn't have the character and they gave up with him. He seems to lack leadership.

So now with most Habs fans he dropped from 2c into 3rd line winger. Geez! I would rather have Romanov today tbh.

The comment I replied to was implying that he was only ever good on Suzuki's wing which is false, he was at his best at center. Can he ever get back to that level of play after all these injuries? Nobody knows.

 

[Sorinth]

16 games is worth more than all the other games if you have to insist to be right despite the preponderance of evidence

Who said that, your claim was his best stretch of games was as a winger, it wasn't.

 

[CzarDemidov]

Who said that, your claim was his best stretch of games was as a winger, it wasn't.

Well, that’s your opinion isn’t it? Marginally better production during a hot streak doesn’t change the fact Dach looked a lot better (and was noted as such by many pundits etc) after he shifted to Suzuki’s wing. He applied his size better, was good against the boards, his defensive frailty was covered by Suzuki, etc.

This is further reinforced by the many bad/worse games Dach has had as C.

 

[habdynasty]

Looks like 4 leaf fans voted here.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

When I was at the Bell center this season, the terrible defeat vs Vegas, I saw Dach as a very static and useless player. I saw Dvorak as a better player and I wasn't a fan of Dvo. I don't know if that was an injury but Dach was not moving his feet and looked not interrested in the game. He was completely turned off.

Sometimes I'm thinking the Hawks knew he didn't have the character and they gave up with him. He seems to lack leadership.

So now with most Habs fans he dropped from 2c into 3rd line winger. Geez! I would rather have Romanov today tbh.

He had tons of potential and hasn't been able to show it. I think he would've killed it with us. He would've been perfect. Big strong skilled 2nd line guy who could put up some decent numbers. He had a fantastic spring last year and then game one gets killed. I thought he was going to have a terrific year and that hit has pretty much ruined everything.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

The comment I replied to was implying that he was only ever good on Suzuki's wing which is false, he was at his best at center. Can he ever get back to that level of play after all these injuries? Nobody knows.

My guess is... no.

But I was way wrong on Andrei Markov... so who knows?

I just know that we can't count on him for anything. Whatever he does is gravy.

 

[Kimota]

When I was at the Bell center this season, the terrible defeat vs Vegas, I saw Dach as a very static and useless player. I saw Dvorak as a better player and I wasn't a fan of Dvo. I don't know if that was an injury but Dach was not moving his feet and looked not interrested in the game. He was completely turned off.

Sometimes I'm thinking the Hawks knew he didn't have the character and they gave up with him. He seems to lack leadership.

So now with most Habs fans he dropped from 2c into 3rd line winger. Geez! I would rather have Romanov today tbh.

When I saw him at the Bell last Fall he was involved and energetic but very individualistic. It felt like he had no linesmates.

 

[Sorinth]

Well, that’s your opinion isn’t it? Marginally better production during a hot streak doesn’t change the fact Dach looked a lot better (and was noted as such by many pundits etc) after he shifted to Suzuki’s wing. He applied his size better, was good against the boards, his defensive frailty was covered by Suzuki, etc.

This is further reinforced by the many bad/worse games Dach has had as C.

Better production with much worse linemates and was noted my many to be looking as good if jot better then Suzuki.

But sure call it an opinion if it makes you feel better, but it's clearly disingenuous to compare his post injury time to his pre-injury time at wing to draw a conclusion that he's better as a winger.

 

[Kobe Armstrong]

@Kobe Armstrong is convinced that a big payday is coming Matheson’s way on July 1st when extensions are possible.

I don’t see how he fits our future plans given that he is a LHD but we know 1) Hughes really does defer to the Quartexx Foxhole whenever possible and 2) the Quartexx Foxhole takes care of its own (Anderson, Newhook, etc).

If this is the case, I really hope Matheson remains as fit as he is, I can probably swallow his contract at 7m if he plays 20min a night and puts up 35-40pts but for how many more seasons will that even last?

It’s just a hunch but I don’t see Matheson leaving Montreal without Hughes guaranteeing his payday, so it’s really extension or sign and trade as the only options.

And the way Hughes speaks about Matheson it’s clear he values his leadership in the room. Not to mention it would send a bad message to the team if we trade Matheson for futures or in a lateral move. If we start trading vets when we’re tending up, we need to add upgrades to replace them or we risk taking a step back next year.

Seems like it will be a typical July 1st where Montreal misses on all the big name UFAs and tries to make some noise by taking care of some in house re-signings

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

When I saw him at the Bell last Fall he was involved and energetic but very individualistic. It felt like he had no linesmates.

There must be something behind the scene we don't know. You and I saw two completely different players. And it's the same guy. I guess he had some kind of injury cuz I can't figure how he wasn't skating at all. If that's not an injury, what can it be?

 

[CzarDemidov]

Better production with much worse linemates and was noted my many to be looking as good if jot better then Suzuki.

But sure call it an opinion if it makes you feel better, but it's clearly disingenuous to compare his post injury time to his pre-injury time at wing to draw a conclusion that he's better as a winger.

He’s been injured a lot in his hockey career, to which injury should we give weight in your opinion? I guess his time and injury with CHI doesn’t count since it totally disproves your take

 

[Scriptor]

If you have Horvat who regularly scores 30 goals + Demidov coming in with say around 25 goals and 60+ points (ie about what Michkov did), and end up with a less then ideal winger filling it out like say Newhook. You don't need a Lemieux who could turn Newhook into a 50 goal scorer, just having him go from the 18 goals he's averaged as a Hab to a 20 goals would mean a net +30 more goals compared to last year. And 30 more goals on top of last year puts us in a tie for 6th in GF and only 2 goals from 3rd OA.

That's why it's kind of irrelevant, if we get a real C like Horvat and Demidov is as good as we all think, then we will already be a top offensive team. At that point filling out the top-6 with another sniper just isn't important and arguably not even ideal since there's a case that the ideal would be someone who brings size and a physical and forechecking element.

The ideal would be BOTH.

SCORING + SIZE/PHYSICALITY/FORECHECKING

The one with potential for that at the NHL level is Heineman.

NEWHOOK CANNOT BE AN OPTION FOR THAT LINE as he brings none of those qualities.

In the minors, F. Xhekaj could become another option.

You need a physical winger with the potential to score 20 goals or more.

If neither Heineman, nor Xhekaj, pan out, when we are truly on the cusp of contending, a top-6 winger that matches the need can be plucked from another rebuilding team for futures, or on the UFA market as they are more frequently available there.

 

[JianYang]

Big, physical and speedy players do not cost a 1st and high 2nd, which is why they went and got Newhook instead.

It's also why Wilson type players either rarely get traded or cost an arm and a leg to get.

HuGo's goal with both the Dach and Newhook trade was trying to get players that seemed to be underperforming and thought that putting them in a better role and system like the Habs would help them reach it.

Even though both trades seem bad in hindsight, the rationale from both trades is sound. I still think the Dach trade was a really good trade (and we saw glimpses of how it could've worked out). It just sucks he got injured two years straight. I do think we overpaid for Newhook at the time, but even then, at worst he was seen as a third line guy and his upside could've been a skilled top 6 player. And now, he could still develop into a good top 9 guy.

Would you have been ok with a first and late 2nd or early 3rd? If so, then we just slightly overpaid for a potential top 6 winger. As I mentioned above, I also think we overpaid, but it's not like we gave the farm for Newhook. You don't get big skilled guys for a 1st and 2nd either.

The dach injury saga is actually even worse than you paint it. He's been hurt in all three years. Every season, he has been shut down prematurely and unable to finish the year.

 

[Sorinth]

The ideal would be BOTH.

SCORING + SIZE/PHYSICALITY/FORECHECKING

The one with potential for that at the NHL level is Heineman.

NEWHOOK CANNOT BE AN OPTION FOR THAT LINE as he brings none of those qualities.

In the minors, F. Xhekaj could become another option.

You need a physical winger with the potential to score 20 goals or more.

If neither Heineman, nor Xhekaj, pan out, when we are truly on the cusp of contending, a top-6 winger that matches the need can be plucked from another rebuilding team for futures, or on the UFA market as they are more frequently available there.

For sure that would be the ideal, but what I can't wrap my head around is the idea that someone like Newhook CANNOT be there. Like what horrible thing happens if Newhook is used there for a season? Is Demidov going to bust or demand a trade if he plays with Newhook for a year?

 

[Zilo44]

I was listening to Processus this morning and they were debating whether the success of any of the 4 last team left in the playoffs could be attributed to a tanking-rebuild. Essentially they came to the conclusion that you could say yes for Edmonton, although basically only 2 players came out of it (Leon and McD).

It goes to show that smart management >> many high picks IMO (see Dallas, Florida, Carolina).

The LA, Pittsburgh, Chicago and Washington blueprint might be out of date

 

[Sorinth]

He’s been injured a lot in his hockey career, to which injury should we give weight in your opinion? I guess his time and injury with CHI doesn’t count since it totally disproves your take

In Chicago he switched between wing and center as well so unless you have the breakdown of which games he was center then it doesn't disprove anything. He had good and bad stretches in Chicago.

 

[Andrei79]

I was listening to Processus this morning and they were debating whether the success of any of the 4 last team left in the playoffs could be attributed to a tanking-rebuild. Essentially they came to the conclusion that you could say yes for Edmonton, although basically only 2 players came out of it (Leon and McD).

It goes to show that smart management >> many high picks IMO (see Dallas, Florida, Carolina).

The LA, Pittsburgh, Chicago and Washington blueprint might be out of date

Florida too. They don't win a cup if they don't draft Ekblad, Barkov and Huberdeau (who was traded for Tkachuk).

 

[Sorinth]

Florida too. They don't win a cup if they don't draft Ekblad, Barkov and Huberdeau (who was traded for Tkachuk).

If you just look at whether they have a couple top picks then pretty much every team in the NHL counts as having tanked and the term becomes meaningless.

 

[Andrei79]

If you just look at whether they have a couple top picks then pretty much every team in the NHL counts as having tanked and the term becomes meaningless.

They didn't have just a couple of high picks. Barkov and Tkachuk were their two best players. No Huberdeau, no Tkachuk. Barkov is their best player, captain and also the best center in the conference. It would be like dismissing Chicago's tank because they just really got a couple of guys with Toews and Kane.

 

[Zilo44]

Florida too. They don't win a cup if they don't draft Ekblad, Barkov and Huberdeau (who was traded for Tkachuk).

Ekblad is not that good. Agreed for Barkov and Huberdeau.

I wouldn’t say Florida willingly tank. They had a 3-4 bad years stretch but they did not intentionally burned down the house like the Sharks or the Hawks just did.

My point is, look at Carolina and Dallas. They did not tank at all. Dallas won a lottery for Heiskanen and drafted very well. They also signed key free agents- pulled great trades.

Carolina only had Svechnikov who is a high pick and who could be a comparable for Slaf. Other than that : good drafting, smart trades and smart signing. Also, terrific coaching hire in Brind’Amour.

Goes to show Montreal is in great shape if Gorton KH play their chips well. Also, with the Suzuki trade, the Caufield-Guhle-Hutson picks, potentially Hage, Fowler and this years mid first, we could have those key moves-mid firsts in addition to 2-3 top 5 picks.

 

[Sorinth]

They didn't have just a couple of high picks. Barkov and Tkachuk were their two best players. No Huberdeau, no Tkachuk. Barkov is their best player, captain and also the best center in the conference. It would be like dismissing Chicago's tank because they just really got a couple of guys with Toews and Kane.

I mean it's just as likely that no Hubredeau means that Tkachuks goes UFA and they sign him a year later. But the point is that having a top pick or the trade results from a top pick as your top player(s) isn't what seperates the good teams from the bad ones.

EDIT: And Chicago doesn't win anything without a ton of late picks turning out great for them.

 

[Zilo44]

I mean it's just as likely that no Hubredeau means that Tkachuks goes UFA and they sign him a year later. But the point is that having a top pick or the trade results from a top pick as your top player(s) isn't what seperates the good teams from the bad ones.

Drafting mid first round and 2nd round, smart trades and signing and great coaching hires are more valuable that landing multiple high 1st IMO

 

[Andrei79]

I mean it's just as likely that no Hubredeau means that Tkachuks goes UFA and they sign him a year later. But the point is that having a top pick or the trade results from a top pick as your top player(s) isn't what seperates the good teams from the bad ones.

EDIT: And Chicago doesn't win anything without a ton of late picks turning out great for them.

Of course you need strong management. The recipe was never to tank and do very little afterwards. But the surest way to acquire superstars remains through high picks and this is true when you look at the list of most cup winners through the last 15 years. In fact, some of them can be so strong like McDavid and Draisaitl (and Price) that they can almost offset terrible management. The idea is to build a team around a strong foundation of high picks. Tkachuk was never going to be a UFA by the way. He talked to Calgary management so they could move him for high value.

 

[Zilo44]

Of course you need strong management. The recipe was never to tank and do very little afterwards. But the surest way to acquire superstars remains through high picks and this is true when you look at the list of most cup winners through the last 15 years. In fact, some of them can be so strong like McDavid and Draisaitl (and Price) that they can almost offset terrible management. The idea is to build a team around a strong foundation of high picks. Tkachuk was never going to be a UFA by the way. He talked to Calgary management so they could move him for high value.

Both models have data supporting the argument. But look at Boston, St. Louis, Florida, Vegas. None were roster construction heavily reliant on multiple top 3 picks.

LA, Tampa Bay and Colorado are in between. Tampa had Hedman Stammer, but also Point, Kucherov, Vasi, Cirelli, etc.

The pure tankers since 2010 are Pittsburgh, maybe Chicago. If they win, I would tend to put Edmonton in that category

 

[Andrei79]

Both models have data supporting the argument. But look at Boston, St. Louis, Florida, Vegas. None were roster construction heavily reliant on multiple top 3 picks.

LA, Tampa Bay and Colorado are in between. Tampa had Hedman Stammer, but also Point, Kucherov, Vasi, Cirelli, etc.

The pure tankers since 2010 are Pittsburgh, maybe Chicago. If they win, I would tend to put Edmonton in that category

What are you replaying to ? The post you're answering to mentions that nobody can win by just tanking, not even Pittsburgh. But, for example, you're bringing up Florida who acquired their second best forward through trading Huberdeau and built up their whole team around the best center in the Eastern Conference who they drafted second OA. It doesn't pass the sniff test. Even less so if you're bringing up a team with Makar, MacKinnon and Landeskog. "Tanking" not only allows you to draft these superstars. Its a process of asset accumulation. You trade a roster player like Steve Downie for the pick needed to draft Vasilevski. You draft third and trade that player for Sergachev. You need a whole second line worth of spots, allowing you to pair up young players like Palat, Johnson and Kucherov together.